CC_Minutes_2015_0817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Bachhuber advised that the PIP could be interpreted in a number of ways, including new assets, but the Commission's intent was to be clear that this fund was intended to maintain existing assets, with actual improvements falling elsewhere. Councilmember Etten asked that the Commission discuss that further with the Parks & Recreation Commission in the near future to make sure their input is part of the City's thought process and this recommendation. Councilmember Etten further noted the last sentence of that bullet point avoided using the word "depre- ciation"in relating to funding an equal portion of estimated replacement costs. Commissioner Rohloff responded that depreciation was not chosen for this type of asset; and if upon review fifteen years into a thirty-year life expectancy there was maintenance indicated that could extend the life of that asset proportionately based on useful life versus new cost, that was used consistently. Commissioner Rohloff noted one example of that could be water pipes, with new technologies continually available to extend that life and provide more flexibility. Councilmember Etten noted a consistent fifth bullet point within each enterprise fund that provided for ongoing preventative maintenance for replacement, and asked for clarification of its intent. Commissioner Rohloff responded that the intent was to charge a sufficient built-in fee to cover the fixed cost for replacement. In that same paragraph, Mayor Roe noted the use of both terms "useful expired life" and "depreciation," and questioned which was the most accurate, asking the Commission to review that for consistency before it came back to the City Coun- cil for formal action. Commissioner Rohloff duly noted that request for consistency. Councilmember Laliberte, with concurrence of the council, noted the need to cross-reference fund names in these updated policies to make sure they were re- named as applicable and referenced in other city policies for ease of following. Regarding consistency, Mayor Roe noted a duplication of the second and third bullet points on page 1 of the New Capital Investment Policy. Noting the recommendation for review of the CIP is recommended bi-annually, with Commissioner Bachhuber noting the intent was for a minimum of every two years, Mayor Roe suggested changing language accordingly to read "every two years"to avoid confusion(page 2)